Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted January 22, 2005 I'm watching Sportsnet now, and Trevor Linden said that the season is done. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted January 22, 2005 http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance 12,171. Not quite last in the leauge, even. It's kind of interesting to note that the NHL has never actually struggled with attendance. Why are some teams short of 82? And also, yes, teams have struggled in the past with attendance. I posted the article about Carolina's 3,000-seat extravaganzas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted February 3, 2005 NHLPA Rejects latest offer NEW YORK (AP) -- The NHL's latest salary-cap proposal to end the season-long lockout was rejected Wednesday by the players' union, which came back with its own idea: Bring commissioner Gary Bettman to the bargaining table. Bettman accepted, and is set to rejoin the talks Thursday for the first time since Dec. 14. He'll meet with union head Bob Goodenow, NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin and attorney John McCambridge. Bill Daly, the NHL's chief legal officer, and attorney Bob Batterman will join Bettman on the owners' side. ``Bob and Gary really have to be in the room to do the deal,'' Daly said. In turning down the league's offer, the union reiterated it won't accept a salary cap as a solution. ``The league presented a written proposal with minor variations of concepts that were presented orally by the NHL last Thursday,'' Saskin said. ``We told the league last week and again today that their multilayered salary cap proposals were not the basis for an agreement.'' The sides met for four hours in Newark, N.J., the fifth time in two weeks they've talked. Time is running out, and the NHL is in danger of becoming the first major North American sports league to lose an entire season to a labor dispute. ``They asked for a meeting again tomorrow, and we'll see what they have to say,'' Daly said. ``The proposal was put together with their interests in mind, what they've communicated to us across the table.'' The lockout reached its 140th day Wednesday, and has forced the cancellation of 762 of the 1,230 regular-season games plus the All-Star game. With time being a factor, there appears to be little wiggle room in negotiating off this proposal. ``We're at the end time-wise in terms of being able to continue this process and still play games this season, so there's not a lot of room flexibility-wise,'' Daly said. The NHL proposed a six-year deal that contained a cap that would force teams to spend at least $32 million on player costs but no more than $42 million -- including benefits. Both figures would be adjusted each year to reflect changes in league revenues. Bettman has said that teams lost a total of more than $1.8 billion over 10 years and that management will not agree to a deal without a defined relationship between revenue and salaries. Owners say teams lost $273 million in 2002-03 and $224 million last season. Last season's average salary was $1.8 million, and the NHL has proposed pushing that back with a salary cap. This offer would give players between 53 and 55 percent of league revenues, so the new average salary would depend on earnings. An economic study commissioned by the NHL found that players got 75 percent of league revenues. The union has challenged many of the league's financial findings. If a deal is reached in time for hockey to be played this year, the NHL proposed that the players' association would still receive 53 percent of revenues generated from a full playoff schedule that would follow a shortened regular season. ``The players will be made whole on that 53 percent guarantee even if it involves us writing a check at the end of the season,'' Daly said. Also included in the offer -- which could be reopened by the union after four years -- was a profit-sharing plan that would allow the players' association to evenly split revenues over a negotiated level with the league. On Dec. 9, the players' association proposed a luxury-tax system with an immediate 24 percent rollback on all existing contracts. The NHL liked the idea, since it would cut average salaries down to $1.3 million, but called that offer a short-term fix. That portion of the union's plan, however, was accepted and included in the league's new proposal. An entry-level contract cap of $850,000 -- including bonuses -- also was proposed by the NHL. That would return the ceiling to that of the 1995 draft class. Last season, the cap on entry-level contracts was $1.295 million. The four-year, two-way contracts would also cap bonuses at $100,000 in each year of the deals for top five draft picks. Those bonuses would drop to $75,000 for players chosen between six and 15; to $50,000 for players taken between 16-30; and to $40,000 for players chosen after the 31st pick. The league has proposed giving its own bonuses to entry-level players who finish in the top five in voting for the Hart, Norris, Vezina and Selke awards -- including $500,000 for winning each award. The NHL also offered to implement a jointly monitored accounting and audit system that would penalize teams with multimillion dollar fines and the loss of draft choices if they failed to disclose financial information. Players would gain unrestricted free agency at 30 instead of 31, starting with the 2006-07 season. That age would drop to 28 if the NHL elects to eliminate salary arbitration during the course of the deal. The minimum salary would be raised 62 percent to $300,000 per year, and guaranteed contracts would remain in existence but would be limited to three-year deals. The league agreed to retain arbitration, a change from its counterproposal to the union on Dec. 14, but the NHL wants to make it so teams can take players to arbitration instead of it being a one-way process. The NHL has been operating under the same collective bargaining agreement since 1995, when the last lockout went 103 days before a 48-game season was played. The Stanley Cup has been awarded every year since 1919 when a flu epidemic wiped out the final series between Montreal and Seattle. http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=ap-n...ov=ap&type=lgns Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted February 3, 2005 Players would gain unrestricted free agency at 30 instead of 31, starting with the 2006-07 season. That age would drop to 28 if the NHL elects to eliminate salary arbitration during the course of the deal. This move right here would guarantee parity, with everything else being equal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted February 3, 2005 T-minus 24 hours and counting...(credit ESPN.com) An NHL team owner who is requesting anonymity said he is expecting the league to make an announcement canceling the rest of the NHL season either after Thursday's meeting or Friday, EJ Hradek of ESPN the Magazine has learned. NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and NHLPA Executive Director Bob Goodenow returned to the bargaining table Thursday. The two weren't present at a series of informal meetings the past two weeks. The NHL is committed to getting cost certainty, and the players' association vows to never accept a salary cap, even the somewhat flexible one formally proposed by the league this week. The lockout reached its 141st day Thursday, and it has forced the cancellation of 772 of the 1,230 regular-season games, plus the All-Star Game. The NHL is in danger of becoming the first major North American sports league to lose an entire season to a labor dispute. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brush with Greatness 0 Report post Posted February 4, 2005 The NHL proposed a six-year deal that contained a cap that would force teams to spend at least $32 million on player costs but no more than $42 million -- including benefits. Both figures would be adjusted each year to reflect changes in league revenues. The NHL also offered to implement a jointly monitored accounting and audit system that would penalize teams with multimillion dollar fines and the loss of draft choices if they failed to disclose financial information. I'm really struggling as to why the NHLPA can't get a deal done out of this. What exactly is wrong with a fluctuating cap that is based on jointly monitored revenues? How greedy are these guys? Just for the record, seven teams fell below the 32 million dollar payroll last season. So that would be seven teams forced to pay their players more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted February 4, 2005 You'd think the members of the Toronto Maple Leafs would be lobbying for a season, because who knows if they'll die of old age before October? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted February 4, 2005 By Bill Simmons Page 2 Editor's Note: This article appears in the February 14 issue of ESPN The Magazine. During a dinner at Sonny McLean's last week, my personal highlight wasn't the various toasts, the tasty buffalo wings, the one guy who inexplicably brought his girlfriend, or even our waitress's reaction to her $110 tip (we couldn't figure out how to split a $290 check 18 ways). My favorite moment was when Eli suddenly griped, "You know what's killing me? This NHL lockout!" At first we all thought he was kidding. I even gave him a courtesy laugh. But he looked fairly distraught. "Wait a second," I said. "You're joking, right?" "No, I miss watching the B's," he replied. "The whole thing sucks." I mention this for two reasons. First, you know a sport has reached "Code Red!" status when it shuts down for a long time, someone in a large group mentions dissatisfaction about that shutdown and everyone assumes he's kidding. And second: readers send me hundreds and hundreds of sports-related e-mails each day. Plus, all my friends like sports except two -- Fanning and Ricky, and they made up for that by watching "Boogie Nights" with me 39 times in the summer of '98. When I meet someone, the conversation invariably turns to sports. Point is, not once in the past five months have I heard someone say anything that remotely approaches, "You know what's killing me? This NHL lockout!" Imagine if the NFL tried to pull this. Say we're reading stories next August like "NFL Owners to Union: No Deal." Wouldn't there be rioting, like after the Rodney King verdicts? I could see leading a massive protest outside Paul Tagliabue's headquarters -- 10 times more belligerent than Brandon Walsh leading the "Donna Martin graduates!" chant-until they had to use tear gas, Dobermans and Ed Hochuli to take me down. But with the NHL's lockout, the apathy has been startling. Wasn't this once a major sport? Why don't we care? Even hockey diehards -- a dying breed right up there with Eddie Murphy fans and handlebar-mustache fans -- seem to agree this lockout is for the best. And that's a little weird, because we're not talking the WNBA here, where only a tiny segment of people will pay to watch the games. People like hockey. Sure, most of them live in Canada, where Bryan Adams is an icon, but there's still an audience. And we are all victims of a once-likable league that screwed itself up beyond repair, the same way you screw up a relationship by drunk-dialing too many times. The NHL made two unforgivable mistakes: expanding more recklessly than Krispy Kreme and paying their players way, way, way too much money. It was a lethal combination of greed and sheer stupidity. This was a blue-collar sport for middle-class fans -- a quality dive bar with one good TV, a few solid beers on tap and a ballbusting bartender named Fitzy. Then they tried to retool into an upscale joint with $15 beers and bartenders in bow ties. Suddenly, the price of NHL tickets rivaled that of the NFL and the NBA. Does that make sense? Would the WWE charge $200 for a WrestleMania pay-per-view? Would Jeff Foxworthy charge $150 a seat for the "You Might Be a Redneck 2005" comedy tour? How could the NHL misunderstand its audience so badly? Now the owners are pushing for massive pay cuts and a salary cap. It's like dropping 10 grand in a casino and then calling for the abolition of blackjack. Still, it's the right idea. I believe NHL players should make $10 an hour, maybe $12. And we should be able to buy two tickets, park, throw down some beers and dogs and brawl in the bathroom for no more than $70 per person. Everyone would live happily ever after. Tragically, the owners lack the resolve and leadership to undo the damage. Basically, they need to bring on a hockey apocalypse and start over. Since that will never happen, hockey is doomed. And that leaves an opening for the Fourth Major Team Sport. One of my readers (Dan from New York) argues that MTV's Real World/Road Rules Battle of the Sexes can take the spot: "I know a lot more about these athletes than the Eastern Europeans on strike." I'm with Dan. I can barely spell Teemu Selanne [Editor's note: he's Northern European, but you get the idea] much less pick him out of a lineup, but I can write 3,000 words on freaking Arissa sneaking into the women's Final 3. Still, my vote goes to letting Vince McMahon retool his XFL idea for hockey: low costs, cool cameras, snazzy uniforms, identifiable gimmicks, fights galore. I'm telling you, the XHL can't miss. And if he ever canceled a season, you can bet there'd be more than one person saying, "You know what's killing me? This XHL lockout!" Sad part is that the XHL would probably actually work.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2005 Still, it's the right idea. I believe NHL players should make $10 an hour, maybe $12. And we should be able to buy two tickets, park, throw down some beers and dogs and brawl in the bathroom for no more than $70 per person. Everyone would live happily ever after. Perhaps a certain sportswriter wouldn't mind making $10 an hour. Something that's been bugging me. ESPN won't stop talking about how bad the NHL has gotten, and how their replacement programming gets higher ratings. Meanwhile, ESPN's crappy coverage was in part responsible for the NHL's drop in popularity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HarleyQuinn 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2005 Something that's been bugging me. ESPN won't stop talking about how bad the NHL has gotten, and how their replacement programming gets higher ratings. Meanwhile, ESPN's crappy coverage was in part responsible for the NHL's drop in popularity. Like ESPN would ever admit it? There was hockey on ESPN2! they'd probably retort with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lightning Flik 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2005 Sad part is that the XHL would probably actually work.... Worse is the fact that if there was any league that went up against the NHL right now, they'd win. Simply because the second-tier stars would hop over for the chance to prove themselves in the new league (and there's a shitload of talent that's free agents). If Vince had done the XHL instead of the XFL, we'd probably have no more NHL, as the XHL would get hockey fans because you could probably attend a game for cheap. If I recall going to an XFL game was cheaper than an NFL game. I'm actually half hoping someone goes "I'm starting up a new hockey league, simply because the NHL and NHLPA don't have a fucking clue." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Baron 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2005 The WHA folks, I mean, that's where we are suppose to get our hockey coverage from. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Baron 0 Report post Posted February 22, 2005 http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=115695 I have to agre with Naslund on this one. Moore and his attornies are just after every player and manager possible now, and knows he will earn more money than he was ever gonna make. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lightning Flik 0 Report post Posted February 22, 2005 I find it funny the media's saying Naslund's comments are absurd when he's right on the money. It was in the game, it happens. Was it ugly? Yes. I do believe so. Was it right? No. Is it a part of the game? Yes. If Moore sues over this and wins, shit will fly and we'll have legal battles about everything and anything concerning sports affairs which will be a stupid mess. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2005 The Ducks were bought today by Dr. Henry Samueli. He also owns the Pond of Anaheim where the Ducks play. I can't wait fot next season. Ducks are SOLD!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2005 Wait a second. If the NHL is such an unprofitable endeavour, why would anyone buy a team? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2005 The man who bought the Ducks owns the Pond. If someone else buys the Ducks, he would be stuck without a tennant unless the Clippers move into the Pond. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lightning Flik 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2005 Ladies and gentlemen, we're having a season whether there's a CBA or not! Report: NHL board of governors to meet in April March 16, 2005 TORONTO (Ticker) - The NHL apparently is making plans to proceed with a 2005-06 season, with or without its players. According to a report on Rogers Sportsnet of Canada's website Wednesday, commissioner Gary Bettman sent a memo inviting all 30 teams to a board of governors meeting on April 20. Citing undisclosed sources, Sportsnet reported it is the second memo issued by Bettman in the last several days, with the first indicating the window of negotiation for a new collective bargaining agreement is closing rapidly, possibly within the next two weeks. The league and the Players Association, who met for 90 minutes on Friday, are expected to gather again Thursday. It will be just the second meeting since February 19, three days after Bettman officially announced the cancellation of the 2004-05 season. While one NHL executive claimed Thursday's sessions is nothing more than "a step towards impasse," the board of governors meeting is believed to a forum for Bettman to outline a plan to use replacement players in 2005-06 should a new CBA not be reached in the near future. On February 16, the NHL became the first major North American sports league to lose an entire season due to a labor dispute. So people should they bring in replacement players, would you watch? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2005 Yes. Unfortunately I don't have much of an attachment to the current crop of NHL players as is so it wouldn't make too much of a difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2005 The Chicago Wolves are better than the Blackhawks. How bad can replacements really be? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nl5xsk1 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2005 I'd most assuredly watch a game with replacement players. With Free Agency and all, it's not like most players stay with the same team for their entire careers anyways (and note that I said MOST, not all ... people like Yzerman and Sakic prove that some people will stay with one team for their career). I'm at the point that I'm a Bruins fan more than a fan of any of their players per-se. Like, I loved Guerin when he was a Bruin, and I still like him now that he's not, but the reason why I liked him more was because he was on my home town team. Put just about anyone in the spoked B and I'll root for them. /Eric Lindros, Kris Draper, and Donald Brashear are three examples of players who could wear the Black & Gold but I'd still hate ... but that's a different thread Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Gecko Report post Posted March 17, 2005 /Eric Lindros, Kris Draper, and Donald Brashear are three examples of players who could wear the Black & Gold but I'd still hate ... Kris Draper? Who could hate Kris Draper? ... says the Red Wings fan... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nl5xsk1 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2005 Gecko, I've hated Draper since the whole war with Lemieux. Yes, I admit that that Lemieux's check into the boards was wrong, but seemed lke it became McCarty's war with the shithead Claude, not Draper's. It should have been Draper that dropped the gloves with Lemieux all those times, not McCarty. It almost seemed that Draper had McCarty go fight his battle for him. And I thought that Draper was strong enough and tough enough to fight his own battles against someone like Lemieux. And I'm an Avalanche hater, too, so if anything I should be siding with Detroit in that whole debacle ... I just couldn't believe how weak Draper came across, letting McCarty defend him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianGuitarist 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2005 Think about this: Replacement players. I say 75% of the current PA come back, though we'll be sadly surprised by a few who don't. Is is treally that tough to adapt to as a fan to have replacements. Even if let's say one of every five comes back, how long does it take for the landscape of the NHL to change as is with retirements, free agents, and what have you. Three years? I hold in my hand my 1999-2000 season Hockey News Yearbook. 6 of the 38 players listed are still with the Habs. 4 of those 6 were playing in the AHL when the book was published. I don't even want to think about who's passed through Edmonton in that time frame. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Baron 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2005 According to TSN.ca, Colorado Avalanche goaltender Tommy Salo, 34, retired. Salo retired because of bad hips, lack of motivation and not being able to stop a puck from the centre line. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
